Journal of periodontology · 2016
Efficacy of 0.12% Chlorhexidine Gluconate for Non-Surgical Treatment of Peri-Implant Mucositis.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Menezes Karyna M, Fernandes-Costa Anderson N, Silva-Neto Reinaldo D, Calderon Patrícia S, Gurgel Bruno C V
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Because peri-implant mucositis may progress to peri-implantitis, effective treatment resulting in resolution of inflammation could prevent peri-implantitis. Current treatment protocols for this condition are still unpredictable. The purpose of this study is to analyze efficacy of non-surgical treatment for patients with peri-implant mucositis during a 6-month follow-up period.
METHODS: This controlled, randomized, double-masked clinical trial included 37 patients diagnosed with peri-implant mucositis, randomly assigned into test group (basic periodontal therapy + 0.12% chlorhexidine) with 61 implants; and control group (basic periodontal therapy + placebo) with 58 implants. Therapy consisted of adaptation of the full-mouth scaling and root planing protocol. Clinical parameters of visible plaque index (VPI), gingival bleeding index (GBI), probing depth (PD), and bleeding on probing (BOP) were measured in implants and were evaluated at baseline and at 1, 3, and 6 months post-therapy. Data were analyzed using the split-plot analysis of variance and χ2 tests with a significance level of 5%.
RESULTS: Intragroup analysis showed that VPI, GBI, PD, and BOP presented statistically significant improvements compared with baseline. No statistically significant differences were found between the test and control groups at any time.
CONCLUSIONS: Both isolated mechanical therapy and its association with 0.12% chlorhexidine mouthwash reduced peri-implant mucositis. Therefore, 0.12% of chlorhexidine was not more effective than placebo.
METHODS: This controlled, randomized, double-masked clinical trial included 37 patients diagnosed with peri-implant mucositis, randomly assigned into test group (basic periodontal therapy + 0.12% chlorhexidine) with 61 implants; and control group (basic periodontal therapy + placebo) with 58 implants. Therapy consisted of adaptation of the full-mouth scaling and root planing protocol. Clinical parameters of visible plaque index (VPI), gingival bleeding index (GBI), probing depth (PD), and bleeding on probing (BOP) were measured in implants and were evaluated at baseline and at 1, 3, and 6 months post-therapy. Data were analyzed using the split-plot analysis of variance and χ2 tests with a significance level of 5%.
RESULTS: Intragroup analysis showed that VPI, GBI, PD, and BOP presented statistically significant improvements compared with baseline. No statistically significant differences were found between the test and control groups at any time.
CONCLUSIONS: Both isolated mechanical therapy and its association with 0.12% chlorhexidine mouthwash reduced peri-implant mucositis. Therefore, 0.12% of chlorhexidine was not more effective than placebo.